JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

In S.T. Case No.411 of 2011, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under section 376 (2) (g) IPC; RI for one year under section 342 IPC and; RI for one year under section 323 IPC - with a default stipulation to undergo RI for one year.

2. Telco P.S. Case No.97 of 2011 was lodged at about 05:30 AM on 26.04.2011 against Raju, Badshah, Sera, Sunny, Kasim and two unknown persons under sections 342, 323 and 376 (2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC). In course of investigation complicity of Tafazul Haque @ Tapa and Ravi Sharma @ Kalia in the occurrence transpired and a charge sheet was laid against all of them. The victim lady (in short, "P") was examined by Dr. Manju Merina Bara who rendered an opinion that "she was subjected to sexual assault". Md. Zahir Khan @ Sunny was arrested in the intervening night of 25/26.04.2011 and the next morning he suffered a disclosure at about 08:30 AM at Barinagar village. He has disclosed the name of other two accused persons and confessed his involvement in committing rape upon "P". At his instance a duppata belonging to "P" was recovered. In course of investigation a Nokia Mobile bearing IMEI No.354169/02055848/7 with SIM No. 7209933425 was recovered from Azad Khan @ Badshah, a nose-pin and a black ladies sandal with broken strap were recovered from Theme Park at 7:30AM on 26.04.2011 and blood-stained cloths of Azad Khan @ Badshah, Nazir Khan @ Raju and Id. Zamir were seized and sealed in presence of the witnesses on 27.04.2011. On 29.04.2011 the accused persons were put on Test Identification Parade (in short, TIP) and they were identified by "P" and Sk. Sabir Alam as perpetrators of the crime. On 05.05.2011 blood sample of "P" was taken and on 26.05.2011 the accused persons gave their blood samples for DNA test. By an order dated 13.03.2012 charges under sections 323, 342 and 376 (2) (g) IPC were framed against the appellants which they have denied and claimed trial. During the trial the prosecution has examined eight witnesses; Sk. Imran PW-2 and Sk. Sabir Ali PW-3 are closely related to "P"; Diwa Kant Jha PW-5 and Md. Nizammuddin PW-7 are seizure witnesses; Md. Rauf Khan PW-4 is a neighbour of PW-2 and; PW-8 is the Investigating Officer.

3. On evaluating the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the victim lady has described the traumatic physical sexual assault upon her in a graphic manner and correctly identified the accused persons in TIP and in the dock. The learned Judge has further held that testimony of the victim lady is corroborated on all material parts by the evidence of PW-3; other prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story; the medical evidence conclusively establishes commission of rape upon the victim lady and, therefore, the prosecution has proved the charge of gang-rape against the accused persons.

4. The testimony of the prosecutrix in a prosecution under section 376 IPC is of pivotal importance and it is statement of the prosecutrix which may alone form the basis for conviction of an accused for the offence of rape, if testimony of the victim girl is of an unimpeachable character and inspires confidence of the Court. The explanation to section 375 IPC has prompted the Courts to hold that injury on the external or internal part of the victim or absence of spermatozoa are not the clinching and conclusive indicators to believe or not to believe the evidence of the prosecutrix. In State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, 2018 SCC Online SC 2256 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is no rule of law or practice that evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration. It has been observed that: "if the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the 'probabilities factor' does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration